Paul Construction And Anr. vs. Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Paul Construction and Anr., sought the disbursal of Rs. 8,39,818/-, including GST and Cess, representing outstanding dues from Work Order No. 435/PWD (BMC) dated 29.09.2021, and the release of an Earnest Deposit of Rs. 18,442/-. The petitioners claimed to have duly executed the work within the stipulated time, and a completion certificate was issued by the Executive Engineer PWD on 01.11.2022. Despite the admitted amount, the respondent corporation, Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation, had allegedly failed to release the payment. The petitioners submitted a representation on 21.01.2025 for expeditious redressal.
Held
The Court directed the respondent corporation to decide the petitioners' representation dated 21.01.2025 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. This decision was to be made after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and would be communicated through a speaking order. The Court noted that since no affidavits were filed by the respondents, the allegations in the writ petition were not deemed to have been admitted. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, and there was no order as to costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent corporation is liable to disburse the outstanding dues of Rs. 8,39,818/- (including GST and Cess) and release the Earnest Deposit of Rs. 18,442/- to the petitioners, as per the terms of Work Order No. 435/PWD (BMC) dated 29.09.2021 and the subsequent completion certificate dated 01.11.2022. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that they had completed the work as per the work order and received a completion certificate, yet the respondent corporation had failed to release the admitted outstanding dues and the Earnest Deposit. Respondent's Contention: The respondent corporation submitted that they were ready and willing to decide the petitioners' representation dated 21.01.2025 within a time-bound manner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Sl. No. 39 Ct No. 3
SG
WPA 6563 of 2025
Paul Construction and Anr.
Vs The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy.
…for the petitioners
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay,
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag,
Mr. Tirthankar Dey.
…for BMC
The present writ petition has been preferred seeking disbursal of a sum of Rs. 8,39,818/- (including GST and Cess) being the alleged outstanding dues arising from Work Order No. 435/PWD (BMC) dated 29.09.2021, along with the release of the Earnest Deposit amounting to Rs. 18,442/-.
It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent corporation issued work order dated 29.09.2021 in favour of the petitioners and they have duly executed the assign work within the stipulated time. Thereafter the Executive Engineer PWD by his memo no. 1178/PWD/BMC dated 01.11.2022 issued completion certificate in favour of the petitioners stating that the petitioners have completed the work within the stipulated time under Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation.
2
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite admitting the said amount the respondent authority has failed to release the said amount.
Under such circumstances, the petitioners had submitted a representation dated 21.01.2025 seeking expeditious redressal.
Learned counsel for the respondent corporation submits that they are ready and willing to decide the petitioners’ representation dated 21.01.2025 within a time bound manner.
In view of the above submission, this court directs the respondent corporation to decide the petitioners’ representation dated 21.01.2025 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners by way of a speaking order.
With the above observation, present writ petition is disposed of.
Since no affidavits have been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall not be deemed to have been admitted.
There shall be no order as to costs.
3
Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.